El medio en el mensaje: la autorreferencia en la televisión generalista

Los medios de comunicación, cuyas funciones clásicas eran «informar, formar y entretener», están dando protagonismo creciente a la autorreferencia, que es una forma abierta o encubierta de autopublicidad. El medio compromete espacios (en la prensa) o tiempos (formatos audiovisuales) para anunciarse a sí mismo, disminuyendo espacios y tiempos dedicados a mostrar realidades (o ficciones) que nada tienen que ver con el propio medio, y que son el mandato derivado de su dimensión social y cívica. El artículo analiza este fenómeno en televisión, con estudios empíricos sobre el registro de 24 horas continuadas de programación en las tres cadenas generalistas con más cuota d e pantalla. La novedad del estudio es 1) el análisis de la autorreferencia también dentro de los programas (y no sólo en los segmentos de continuidad declaradamente autopublicitarios: promociones, cortinillas, caretas, etc.) y 2) la atención a la autorreferencia como estrategia de cross-promotion entre medios del mismo grupo multimedia.

High impact training : achieving synergies between program management education and workplace practice

This paper addresses the challenges of transfer of training back to the workplace for programme and project managers who are being groomed for the leadership of large and complex projects. The paper draws on the experience of the development and delivery of Queensland University of Technology (QUT) education programs: an Executive Masters of Complex Project Management and a series of Continuing Professional Development (CPD) events for an Australian government agency, Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO). Drawing on notions of ‘far transfer’ (Laker 1990; Noe, 1986) and ‘transfer climate’ (Kozlowski & Salas, 1993; Yamnill & McLean, 2001), the paper describes the steps undertaken to achieve a design that ensures that programme and project leadership skills developed through these corporate education programs become successfully embedded back in the organisation. Further, the paper reports on a small qualitative study where the programme success was evaluated by the organisational sponsor, senior leaders and program participants. Nine interviews were conducted and analysed to identify the success of far transfer and transfer climate four months after the return of program participants from cohort 1 2008 to the workplace.

Managing a portfolio of corporate venture units : challenges in achieving within-unit focus and between-unit coordination

Principal Topic: There is increasing recognition that the organizational configurations of corporate venture units should depend on the types of ventures the unit seeks to develop (Burgelman, 1984; Hill and Birkinshaw, 2008). Distinction have been made between internal and external as well as exploitative versus explorative ventures (Hill and Birkinshaw, 2008; Narayan et al., 2009; Schildt et al., 2005). Assuming that firms do not want to limit themselves to a single type of venture, but rather employ a portfolio of ventures, the logical consequence is that firms should employ multiple corporate venture units. Each venture unit tailor-made for the type of venture it seeks to develop. Surprisingly, there is limited attention in the literature for the challenges of managing multiple corporate venture units in a single firm. Maintaining multiple venture units within one firm provides easier access to funding for new ideas (Hamel, 1999). It allows for freedom and flexibility to tie the organizational systems (Rice et al., 2000), autonomy (Hill and Rothaermel, 2003), and involvement of management (Day, 1994; Wadwha and Kotha, 2006) to the requirements of the individual ventures. Yet, the strategic objectives of a venture may change when uncertainty around the venture is resolved (Burgelman, 1984). For example, firms may decide to spin-in external ventures (Chesbrough, 2002) or spun-out ventures that prove strategically unimportant (Burgelman, 1984). This suggests that ventures might need to be transferred between venture units, e.g. from a more internally-driven corporate venture division to a corporate venture capital unit. Several studies suggested that ventures require different managerial skills across their phase of development (Desouza et al., 2007; O'Connor and Ayers, 2005; Kazanjian and Drazin, 1990; Westerman et al., 2006). To facilitate effective transfer between venture units and manage the overall venturing process, it is important that firms set up and manage integrative linkages. Integrative linkages provide synergies and coordination between differentiated units (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967). Prior findings pointed to the important role of senior management (Westerman et al., 2006; Gilbert, 2006) and a shared organizational vision (Burgers et al., 2009) to coordinate venture units with mainstream businesses. We will draw on these literatures to investigate the key question of how to integratively manage multiple venture units. ---------- Methodology/Key Propositions: In order to seek an answer to the research question, we employ a case study approach that provides unique insights into how firms can break up their venturing process. We selected three Fortune 500 companies that employ multiple venturing units, IBM, Royal Dutch/ Shell and Nokia, and investigated and compared their approaches. It was important that the case companies somewhat differed in the type of venture units they employed as well as the way they integrate and coordinate their venture units. The data are based on extensive interviews and a variety of internal and external company documents to triangulate our findings (Eisenhardt, 1989). The key proposition of the article is that firms can best manage their multiple venture units through an ambidextrous design of loosely coupled units. This provides venture units with sufficient flexibility to employ organizational configurations that best support the type of venture they seek to develop, as well as provides sufficient integration to facilitate smooth transfer of ventures between venture units. Based on the case findings, we develop a generic framework for a new way of managing the venturing process through multiple corporate venture units. ---------- Results and Implications: One of our main findings is that these firms tend to organize their venture units according to phases in the venture development process. That is, they tend to have venture units aimed at incubation of venture ideas as well as units aimed more at the commercialization of ventures into a new business unit for the firm or a start-up. The companies in our case studies tended to coordinate venture units through integrative management skills or a coordinative venture unit that spanned multiple phases. We believe this paper makes two significant contributions. First, we extend prior venturing literature by addressing how firms manage a portfolio of venture units, each achieving different strategic objectives. Second, our framework provides recommendations on how firms should manage such an approach towards venturing. This helps to increase the likelihood of success of their venturing programs.

Unlocking synergies between business units: internal value creation at Royal Vopak.

This paper examines the process of creating and exploiting synergies between business units of a multi-unit corporation and the creation of internal value by combining and exploiting knowledge. It offers a framework to create and manage such synergies and undertakes an empirical test through in-depth study across three business units of Royal Vopak, a Dutch-based global multi-unit corporation. Finally, it offers lessons for corporate managers trying to create and manage cross-unit synergies.